Summarize your views.....pro or con
08-08-2007, 08:47 PM
#31
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 25
30 days non volunteer to FDA - NO
$4,000-$5,000 to to pack and move household goods to storage and then $4,000 to $5,000 to move goods back to new house - NO
$4,000 for storage--have to sell 1/3 of my household goods - NO
No storage for cars so I have to sell - NO
500 pounds of household goods shipped to FDA - not enough - NO
$10,000 seed money - not enough - NO
It should not cost me money to move to a FDA. It should be at least cost neutral.
30 days non volunteer to FDA - NO - I will never support this idea.
$4,000-$5,000 to to pack and move household goods to storage and then $4,000 to $5,000 to move goods back to new house - NO
$4,000 for storage--have to sell 1/3 of my household goods - NO
No storage for cars so I have to sell - NO
500 pounds of household goods shipped to FDA - not enough - NO
$10,000 seed money - not enough - NO
It should not cost me money to move to a FDA. It should be at least cost neutral.
30 days non volunteer to FDA - NO - I will never support this idea.
08-08-2007, 08:56 PM
#32
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by U2FDX
If that is all I will have to endure;(which I will as a bottom 80%er on the bus )to secure the International expansion for the last 23-28 years of my fedex career thats ok with me. I will have a beer or two for you.
And, my guess is you will have more to endure than what was commented in the previous reply to your post.
08-08-2007, 09:03 PM
#33
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by iarapilot
There seems to be a misconception that this FDA flying will be all new stuff. It is not. It is the same flying that the MD and SFS Bus are doing. Same freight and city pairs. All they are doing is moving the hub from SFS to CAN. We are not opening new markets in a different country. Think of it as moving IND to GSP. Same same. So, as far as expansion, this is not the case at this point in time.
And, my guess is you will have more to endure than what was commented in the previous reply to your post.
And, my guess is you will have more to endure than what was commented in the previous reply to your post.
Actually, much of the 757 flying in Europe is SUPPOSED to be new flying - Eastern Europe, I believe. But you are probably correct about the Asia flying.
08-08-2007, 09:18 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
LOA Option #1 - Go under current CBA, lose FDA bonus.
LOA Option #2 - Gain up to $2700/mo, lose almost entire CBA Sec 6.
What kind of options are those?
The main reason that SFS was palatable under the CBA Sec. 6, was the tax benefit, cost of living and it was somewhat commutable.
To open new FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world with the option of 1)taking less than our current CBA, or 2)stripping it completely for a $2700/mo allowance is ludicrous.
Scope? Someone posted "If that is all I will have to endure;(which I will as a bottom 80%er on the bus )to secure the International expansion for the last 23-28 years of my fedex career thats ok with me. I will have a beer or two for you."
Are you kidding me? There is NO language in the LOA or the CBA, for that matter, that secures any international flying for you! If that language was in there...I might have actually voted for it. But, it's not.
This LOA should have been built with Sec 6, as the base starting point. Added allowances for each individual city and offered tax equalization.
"Secure International expansion for your next 23-28 years..." YGTSM! That's the most naive thing I've read yet.
LOA Option #2 - Gain up to $2700/mo, lose almost entire CBA Sec 6.
What kind of options are those?
The main reason that SFS was palatable under the CBA Sec. 6, was the tax benefit, cost of living and it was somewhat commutable.
To open new FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world with the option of 1)taking less than our current CBA, or 2)stripping it completely for a $2700/mo allowance is ludicrous.
Scope? Someone posted "If that is all I will have to endure;(which I will as a bottom 80%er on the bus )to secure the International expansion for the last 23-28 years of my fedex career thats ok with me. I will have a beer or two for you."
Are you kidding me? There is NO language in the LOA or the CBA, for that matter, that secures any international flying for you! If that language was in there...I might have actually voted for it. But, it's not.
This LOA should have been built with Sec 6, as the base starting point. Added allowances for each individual city and offered tax equalization.
"Secure International expansion for your next 23-28 years..." YGTSM! That's the most naive thing I've read yet.
Last edited by Busboy; 08-08-2007 at 09:26 PM.
08-08-2007, 09:37 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B777
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by iarapilot
There seems to be a misconception that this FDA flying will be all new stuff. It is not. It is the same flying that the MD and SFS Bus are doing. Same freight and city pairs. All they are doing is moving the hub from SFS to CAN. We are not opening new markets in a different country. Think of it as moving IND to GSP. Same same. So, as far as expansion, this is not the case at this point in time.
And, my guess is you will have more to endure than what was commented in the previous reply to your post.
And, my guess is you will have more to endure than what was commented in the previous reply to your post.
This is not small bannana stuff, this is our future. I am not out to change anybody's vote I am just replying to the things I have been thinking about previously.
P.S. I will endure alot if I believe that it will make us stronger as I have seen,as a UsAir Furloughee the effects of a weak system with weak scope.
Best Regards to all and PLEASE VOTE one way or the other, as not voting is truly a weak showing.
08-08-2007, 09:44 PM
#37
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B777
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Busboy
LOA Option #1 - Go under current CBA, lose FDA bonus.
LOA Option #2 - Gain up to $2700/mo, lose almost entire CBA Sec 6.
What kind of options are those?
The main reason that SFS was palatable under the CBA Sec. 6, was the tax benefit, cost of living and it was somewhat commutable.
To open new FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world with the option of 1)taking less than our current CBA, or 2)stripping it completely for a $2700/mo allowance is ludicrous.
Scope? Someone posted "If that is all I will have to endure;(which I will as a bottom 80%er on the bus )to secure the International expansion for the last 23-28 years of my fedex career thats ok with me. I will have a beer or two for you."
Are you kidding me? There is NO language in the LOA or the CBA, for that matter, that secures any international flying for you! If that language was in there...I might have actually voted for it. But, it's not.
This LOA should have been built with Sec 6, as the base starting point. Added allowances for each individual city and offered tax equalization.
"Secure International expansion for your next 23-28 years..." YGTSM! That's the most naive thing I've read yet.
LOA Option #2 - Gain up to $2700/mo, lose almost entire CBA Sec 6.
What kind of options are those?
The main reason that SFS was palatable under the CBA Sec. 6, was the tax benefit, cost of living and it was somewhat commutable.
To open new FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world with the option of 1)taking less than our current CBA, or 2)stripping it completely for a $2700/mo allowance is ludicrous.
Scope? Someone posted "If that is all I will have to endure;(which I will as a bottom 80%er on the bus )to secure the International expansion for the last 23-28 years of my fedex career thats ok with me. I will have a beer or two for you."
Are you kidding me? There is NO language in the LOA or the CBA, for that matter, that secures any international flying for you! If that language was in there...I might have actually voted for it. But, it's not.
This LOA should have been built with Sec 6, as the base starting point. Added allowances for each individual city and offered tax equalization.
"Secure International expansion for your next 23-28 years..." YGTSM! That's the most naive thing I've read yet.
Hey, BUSBOY I am not SY do you have a better idea how to secure this flying?
Do you really think the Union is pulling the wool over you eyes?
If I am so Naive after 6 airlines 3 bankrupcies,one furlough, and 17 years in the buisness than I guess there is nothing I can say to you other than cheers,bottoms up.
08-08-2007, 09:47 PM
#38
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by U2FDX
P.S. I will endure alot if I believe that it will make us stronger as I have seen,as a UsAir Furloughee the effects of a weak system with weak scope.
USAir scope had nothing to do with the failure. They gave away all of their scope for RJs anyway. That is the problem. Giving up, and they still went Bankrupt twice.
08-08-2007, 09:57 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B777
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Lipout1
USAir scope had nothing to do with the failure. They gave away all of their scope for RJs anyway. That is the problem. Giving up, and they still went Bankrupt twice.
WE cannot loose this flying just like the majors lost the RJ flying.
I give up, best luck to us all
Later
08-08-2007, 10:03 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Yah. I think language could easily be written into the LOA. Because it sure isn't in there now!
What I'm saying, is that thinking that voting for this LOA it is going to secure International flying for your next 28 years, is naive.
The LOA is the company's asking price. Both the company and our union have publicly stated that they will open the FDAs, with FedEx pilots, under the current CBA, if we don't pass this. That's fine with me. If they don't want to be businesslike, and fix the LOA...So be it. We'll see them at the table in a couple years.
What I'm saying, is that thinking that voting for this LOA it is going to secure International flying for your next 28 years, is naive.
The LOA is the company's asking price. Both the company and our union have publicly stated that they will open the FDAs, with FedEx pilots, under the current CBA, if we don't pass this. That's fine with me. If they don't want to be businesslike, and fix the LOA...So be it. We'll see them at the table in a couple years.
Last edited by Busboy; 08-08-2007 at 10:27 PM. Reason: Bad analogy
